Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

The assertion is that, while it may be unknown what the origin is of the 'potential for a pattern', it can be implied that is necessarily meaningful.

Er, no, it implies no such thing. Do you know what "implies" means? It means that a certain proposition is logically derivable from another proposition. The existence of a pattern (and the "potential" for the pattern) logically implies nothing about meanings. And, of course, you continue to assert that phenomena have "meanings" without specifying to whom they have meanings, which makes those statements non-cognitive.

On that basis, whatever the origin of the indicated potential may be, it can be said that the descriptor 'pure meaning' (or 'good per se') is applicable, which can serve as a ground for the argument that morality is of substance outside the scope of subjective experience (i.e. that a 'meaning of life' is applicable on a fundamental level, "before value" or "before the potential for a pattern to be possible")

"Pure meaning" and "good per se" cannot serve as the ground for ANY argument, because those terms themselves are (cognitively) meaningless. So is the phrase "morality is of substance outside the scope of subjective experience." Morality is not a "substance" of any kind.

You just inventing spurious definitions of numerous common words, psy, and weaving them into a a texture of gibberish, nonsense.

Random is not equal to unpredictable. When there is probability, there is a deviation of 'pure randomness' and that means value (meaningful pattern).

You persist with the same meaningless assertions. Probabilities and non-random phenomena neither mean nor imply anything about value, and any claim that X has value, to be meaningful, requires that a valuer be specified.

[GE Morton]

No, they're simply pollution. The blame for who put them there is not relevant to the need to take them away again, or otherwise neutralise the effect they have. The OP asks us to focus on (possible) solutions, not who's to blame for the problems. I think the latter is a serious distraction, don't you?

I agree.

[GE Morton]

For a goal or purpose to be meaningful, it cannot be predetermined because then it would be a deterministic functionality at most. Therefore, a goal of life/existence cannot originate from an 'intention' by an individual.

There is no "goal of life." The only goals there are, are those chosen by sentient creatures. Natural phenomena, including life, do not have goals. You're anthropomorphizing the universe.

The argument is that on a fundamental level, the origin of the potential for a pattern to be possible, is necessarily meaningful but cannot be a pattern, and thus that on a fundamental level, meaning is applicable as precursor to value (as precursor to anything that amounts to 'physical reality').

Nothing is "necessarily meaningful." That is a vacuous phrase which doesn't understand the meaning of "meaning."

The term 'cognitive' was not used. For something to be conceived of it must have existed beforehand. It is said by the logic, that before a pattern is possible, meaning is to be considered applicable (of substance), which implies that meaning (as 'pure' meaning) is pre-cognitive.

You probably don't understand what is meant by "cognitive." That term applies to propositions --- grammatically well-formed declarative sentences --- and denotes those which have determinable truth values, i.e., those for which we know how to go about determining whether they are true or false. Propositions for which we have no idea how to go about determining whether they are true or false are non-cognitive, and convey no information. They are meaningless strings of words.

[psyreporter]

Er, no, it implies no such thing. Do you know what "implies" means? It means that a certain proposition is logically derivable from another proposition. The existence of a pattern (and the "potential" for the pattern) logically implies nothing about meanings. And, of course, you continue to assert that phenomena have "meanings" without specifying to whom they have meanings, which makes those statements non-cognitive.

The simple assertion is that without meaningfulness, a pattern cannot be possible. The meaning that is indicated is of a sort that applies on a fundamental level as precursor of value (meaningful pattern). Without meaning as precursor of value, one would assume that patterns originate from pure randomness or nothingness (it either magically sprung into existence, or it magically always existed), which is absurd.

Morality is not a "substance" of any kind.

You just inventing spurious definitions of numerous common words, psy, and weaving them into a a texture of gibberish, nonsense.

"to be of substance" means that something is to be considered of a nature that is meaningfully relevant within the scope that one can denote to be 'physical reality'.

When it concerns morality, the assertion "to be of substance" is most applicable because while empirical evidence for morality or 'good' is impossible, relevance to physical reality may be said to be applicable, thus, morality may be considered "to be of substance".

There is no "goal of life." The only goals there are, are those chosen by sentient creatures. Natural phenomena, including life, do not have goals. You're anthropomorphizing the universe.

That statement would require determinism to be true, which is questionable.

Philosophical consideration can amount to what Kant argued to be a 'justified belief' or 'rational faith' in morality. While one is not able to provide empirical evidence for 'good', most will confirm that the question 'what is good?' is quite reasonable.

Simple logic will indicate that reasonableness of the question 'what is good?' is not possible by subjective experience alone, because that would require determinism to be true.

Kant argued that although it is not possible to have knowledge of morality, reflection on the moral law leads to a justified belief in them, which amounts to a kind of rational faith.

[Steve3007]

Do you think that individuals and companies should clean up their own waste? Or do you think the taxpayers should foot company clean-up bills as they are currently doing? Or should only individuals have the responsibility to clean up their own waste?

What waste are you referring to? CO2 in the atmosphere or poison in a lake? As I said, I think they're two very different things for the reasons I gave. If you mean CO2 in the atmosphere, what action would constitute cleaning it up? Reducing CO2 back to pre-industrial levels, stopping emissions of more CO2, reducing emissions of more CO2, or something else?

[Sy Borg]

Do you think that individuals and companies should clean up their own waste? Or do you think the taxpayers should foot company clean-up bills as they are currently doing? Or should only individuals have the responsibility to clean up their own waste?

What waste are you referring to? CO2 in the atmosphere or poison in a lake? As I said, I think they're two very different things for the reasons I gave. If you mean CO2 in the atmosphere, what action would constitute cleaning it up? Reducing CO2 back to pre-industrial levels, stopping emissions of more CO2, reducing emissions of more CO2, or something else?

It's a misrepresentation to paint me as blaming our ancestors for finding useful stuff in the ground, as you did earlier. It's not normally like you to resort to using cheap straw persons.

Fact: Fossil fuel companies employed basically the same tactics as cigarette companies in sowing doubt about the science.

Same situation with Clair Patterson who exposed the lead levels in petrol:

Since the 1920s petroleum companies had been adding tetraethyl lead to their petrol to improve performance in internal combustion motors. There was also lead in paint, in plumbing, in food containers, even in children’s toys.

Now, little more than 30 years later, Patterson found build-ups of lead in the environment that were shocking. But when he began presenting his findings, he found himself pitted against the special interest might of pretty much the industrialised world, plus governments, and even some scientists.

In 1965 he published a paper titled “Contaminated and Natural Lead Environments of Man”, in the journal Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, and despite receiving widespread criticism and even derision, he continued his research into lead pollution.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/earth- ... he-freely/

They had plenty of time to adjust to an inevitable change but, instead of adjusting, they lobbied and sowed doubt in climate science. This should be taken into account when it comes to taxpayer-funded subsidies.

[Steve3007]

It's a misrepresentation to paint me as blaming our ancestors for finding useful stuff in the ground, as you did earlier. It's not normally like you to resort to using cheap straw persons.

OK, I don't blame you for that and I retract any comment which said that I do.

So, in talking about cleaning up mess, when talking about CO2 emissions, what are we talking about? Reducing CO2 back to pre-industrial levels, stopping emissions of more CO2, reducing emissions of more CO2, or something else? I presume we're talking about transitioning away from fossil fuels and therefore gradually reducing the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2?

[Steve3007]

They had plenty of time to adjust to an inevitable change but, instead of adjusting, they lobbied and sowed doubt in climate science. This should be taken into account when it comes to taxpayer-funded subsidies.

I don't particularly want to get involved in the details of the argument you've been having with GE about what constitutes a subsidy. Clearly, being already a believer in minimal taxation, GE is not going to view the reduction of a tax as a subsidy. He's probably going to view it as a tax that shouldn't have been in place anyway. That's presumably why he keeps talking about "lefty newspeak". If I got involved in an argument like that then the issue of what to do about climate change inevitably bleeds into a wider left versus right political debate. In trying to find areas of agreement with people, I prefer to try to treat issues as separate, as far as possible. I we don't do that then, unless we agree about everything, we often find that we can't agree about anything.

[Steve3007]

(By the way, I like the non-sexist reference to "straw persons". You should use that one on Nick_A to wind him up.)

[Sy Borg]

It's a misrepresentation to paint me as blaming our ancestors for finding useful stuff in the ground, as you did earlier. It's not normally like you to resort to using cheap straw persons.

OK, I don't blame you for that and I retract any comment which said that I do.

So, in talking about cleaning up mess, when talking about CO2 emissions, what are we talking about? Reducing CO2 back to pre-industrial levels, stopping emissions of more CO2, reducing emissions of more CO2, or something else? I presume we're talking about transitioning away from fossil fuels and therefore gradually reducing the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2?

No, look at what's happening in New Delihi. They had to shut down multiple coal fired power stations to reduce record pollution levels. That's pollution coming directly from burning coal. More understandable for India than Australia, the latter having decades to utilise their nature advantages, and the opportunity to lead innovation. But the coal companies, with the help of a particular mogul whom I shall not mention, fought for BAU, and won, to the detriment of the Australian people.

Like GE, I think giant corporations are the future. Unlike him, I don't think they should have a saloon passage provided by indulgent ideologues on the right. Rather, corporations should be pressured, badgered and forced to make themselves accountable at every turn, at least as much as possible. Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen! Corporations given free reign and easy subsidies soon become flaccid, inefficient parasites, addicted to taxpayer handouts, easy EIS approvals and general bloat.

[Sy Borg]

(By the way, I like the non-sexist reference to "straw persons". You should use that one on Nick_A to wind him up.)

Actually, I did it on another forum a long time ago, and the blokes there went off their rockers. How it was an incorrect use of the term and an example of PC gone mad etc. I just thought it sounded fun but, even then, the American culture wars were already well in train and the lads on the forum were as combustible as toddlers after a sugar binge.

[Steve3007]

So, in talking about cleaning up mess, when talking about CO2 emissions, what are we talking about? Reducing CO2 back to pre-industrial levels, stopping emissions of more CO2, reducing emissions of more CO2, or something else? I presume we're talking about transitioning away from fossil fuels and therefore gradually reducing the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2?

No, look at what's happening in New Delihi. They had to shut down multiple coal fired power stations to reduce record pollution levels. That's pollution coming directly from burning coal. More understandable for India than Australia, the latter having decades to utilise their nature advantages, and the opportunity to lead innovation. But the coal companies, with the help of a particular mogul whom I shall not mention, fought for BAU, and won, to the detriment of the Australian people.

So, to be clear, you're not talking about CO2 and climate change here? You're talking about local pollution from toxins released by burning coal? Like the smog in London before the clean air act?

I've been talking about CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) and climate change/global warming.

[Steve3007]

(By the way, I like the non-sexist reference to "straw persons". You should use that one on Nick_A to wind him up.)

Actually, I did it on another forum a long time ago, and the blokes there went off their rockers. How it was an incorrect use of the term and an example of PC gone mad etc. I just thought it sounded fun but, even then, the American culture wars were already well in train and the lads on the forum were as combustible as toddlers after a sugar binge.

There's a guy I work with who seems to be going that way a bit. (If he's a poster on here, and he's reading this: Sorry. All good fun. No offense intended.). He's getting more and more animated about political correctness, woke-ism, cancel culture and all that stuff. He's currently obsessed with that Kyle Rittenhouse trial that's been going on in the US, and keeps explaining at length why it's an example of mass hysteria about invented racist motives for the shooting. I should introduce him to Nick_A.

[Steve3007]

Like GE, I think giant corporations are the future. Unlike him, I don't think they should have a saloon passage provided by indulgent ideologues on the right. Rather, corporations should be pressured, badgered and forced to make themselves accountable at every turn, at least as much as possible. Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen! Corporations given free reign and easy subsidies soon become flaccid, inefficient parasites, addicted to taxpayer handouts, easy EIS approvals and general bloat.

I've never noticed GE proposing that giant corporations are the future. As far as I can tell, he seems to be agnostic about the size of corporations, or companies, or businesses generally, so long as they operate in a completely free market environment in which the only taxes they pay are those that fund the enforcement of basic rights to individual liberty, and the protection of commons (i.e. classical liberal/libertarian). It's on the protection of commons that I think we find agreement when discussing climate change (the atmosphere being an example of a common.)

[Pattern-chaser]

The following logic provides evidence that ‘meaning’ is applicable on a fundamental level.

The simplest departure from pure randomness implies value (meaningful pattern). This is evidence that all that can be seen in the world – from the simplest pattern onward – is value.

Well, no. Patterns have nothing to do with value --- they are all (intrinsically) value-free. And whether any particular has value depends upon whether it proves to be of value to someone, to some sentient creature. It will then have whatever value that creature assigns to it.

This is true, but then again, it's true of everything to which people attach value(s) ... which is pretty much everything. So what you say is true, but rendered more or less meaningless by its universality....